I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News. I write about energy and environment issues, frequently focusing on global warming. I have presented environmental analysis on CNN, CNN Headline News, CBS Evening News, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, and several national radio programs. My environmental analysis has been published in virtually every major newspaper in the United States. I studied atmospheric science and majored in government at Dartmouth College. I obtained my Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University.

As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise, Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit

New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are continuing to rise but global temperatures are not following suit. The new data undercut assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis.

NOAA data show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 2.67 parts per million in 2012, to 395 ppm. The jump was the second highest since 1959, when scientists began measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

Global temperatures are essentially the same today as they were in 1995, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were merely 360 ppm. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose 10 percent between 1995 and 2012, yet global temperatures did not rise at all. Global warming activists are having a difficult time explaining the ongoing disconnect between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.

This isn’t the first time in recent years that global temperatures have disobeyed the models presented by global warming activists. From the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s, global temperatures endured a 30-year decline even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose nearly 10 percent. From 1900 through 1945, by contrast, global temperatures rose rapidly despite a lack of coal power plants, SUV’s, and substantial carbon dioxide emissions.

Remarkably, global warming activists are spinning the ongoing rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, along with the ongoing lack of global temperature rise, as evidence that we are facing an even worse global warming crisis than they have been predicting.

“The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the air jumped dramatically in 2012, making it very unlikely that global warming can be limited to another 2 degrees as many global leaders have hoped,” the Associated Press reported yesterday.

Actually, the fact that temperatures remain flat even as carbon dioxide levels continue to rise is a devastating rebuke to assertions that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are causing a global warming crisis.

On a related front, the NOAA data amplify the futility of imposing costly carbon dioxide restrictions on the U.S. economy in the name of fighting global warming. U.S. carbon dioxide emissions declined 10 percent during the past decade, yet global emissions rose by more than 30 percent.

Regardless of the future pace of ongoing reductions in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, global carbon dioxide emissions will continue to rise. Even if the United States committed economic suicide by imposing all or most of the carbon dioxide restrictions advocated by global warming activists, the ensuing U.S. carbon dioxide reductions would amount to merely a drop in the bucket compared to the flood of emissions increases by the world as a whole and by developing nations such as China and India in particular.

Fortunately, as the new NOAA data show, and as global warming ‘skeptics’ have observed all along, rising carbon dioxide emissions are having only a modest impact on global temperatures and are not creating a global warming crisis.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

jhoptoad – The Harries et al paper looks at only 3 months of 1970 data compared to 3 months of 1997 data using 2 different instruments. They then used models to filter data before arriving at their conclusions. What does that tell me about the measured continuous trend of OLR over time and specifically how does that show that the measured continuous OLR trend is decreasing as you suggested?

JimHatem – Climate sensitivity is generally understood to mean the change in average global temperture due to a doubling of CO2. Doubling from the average interglacial concentration of 280 ppm will lead to an increase in the earth’s temperature by some amount, which most studies indicates is ~ 3 degrees C. So, 280 to 560 ppm ==> temp increase of 3 degrees. From 560 pm to 1120 ppm==> another 3 degrees for a total of 6 degrees above average interglacial temperatures. This is consistent with concentrations and temps in, eg, the Jurassic. That’s the meaning of the logarhithmic relationship, which was discovered by Arrhenius in 1896. The “saturation” claim was first made by Angstrom in the early 20th Century wand was demonstrated to be wrong shortly thereafter.

jhoptoad – please disregard my responses. I misunderstood your original comment and reread it and I now understand your point and that neither of my responses apply to you comment on OLR. Sorry and I will happily butt out now. :-)

If 385 ppm of some trace gas in the atmosphere can heat the vast oceans and land masses beneath it, then perhaps 500,000 ppm could heat my home. I could insulate it with CO2 and never have to spend a dime on natural gas again.

Oh, but I can’t because there are no CO2 heat generators because heat trapping CO2 is freaking AGW nutjob science fiction.

Yes, there are natural climate cycles. And the levels of heat are directly related to the levels of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. (see F. Parrenin et al, Science, 2013)

And I can’t help but notice that you dodged the question. Take two gaseous mixtures of Nitrogen and Oxygen whose only difference is CO2 concentration. Hold everything else equal. Expose to a heating source. Which of the two will trap more heat?

Atmosphere and ocean cycles dissipate heat, obviously. Stop ignoring the main issue. Increase the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere. Hold everything else equal compared to a parallel universe where the CO2 did not increase. The Earth with more CO2 will have a higher temperature.

If you have experimental findings that show a different result, I urge you to submit them for publication.

I answered your question. I said there should be no difference. But for argument’s sake I gave you your answer. Now please provide the reasoning as to why the larger concentration of CO2 would give you a greater temperature.

I am not avoiding the main issue. I have asked you a very simple question on the temperatures of the moon as compared with those on earth. And you have provided a partially correct answer.

Why are the temperatures on the moon, without water or an atmosphere, so much greater than those on the earth, with an atmosphere and water?

You mentioned a very good reason for the inferior temperatures on earth. You alluded to the presence of an atmosphere and water. Good going. Now, why are the earth’s daytime temperatures lower with the presence of an atmosphere and water? And if we increase the density of that atmosphere and water, will it increase or lower those daytime temperatures?

So don’t say its irrelevant, when you got it right. Just expand on what you said and AGW theory will be an at end, well for you anyway.

You want experimental evidence.

Here you go. 5 pounds sterling defeats AGW. Enjoy.

And do note where the melting temperature of CO2 is on the scale and that of Nitrogen and Oxygen. As the author queries, why is CO2 so much more sensitive to heat when it clearly isn’t, when it requires a much higher temperature for melting than Oxygen and Nitrogen !

You can’t because CO2 absorbs energy and releases it in the form of heat. Its not in and of itself a heat generator. You could use it for insulation. However it would be rather expensive compared to the comparable impact you could get from various other forms of insulation.